Visible light and total mass. Shown is the composite colour image of PSZ2 G099.86+58.45 exploiting CFHTLS g, r and i band images. The contours follow the mass distribution reconstructed from WL (white) and optical i light (red) of the galaxies with photometric redshift within ±0.06(1 + zcl) of the cluster redshift (zcl). The longer the dash, the higher the contour value. The map is centred on the BCG, and north is up. Scale bar, 1 Mpc h−1. Credit: (c) Nature Astronomy (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41550-018-0508-y

Dark matter halos are theoretical bodies inside which galaxies are suspended; the halo's mass dominates the total mass. These halos cannot be observed directly, but astronomers infer their presence by the phenomenon of gravity lensing—the distortion of background objects by strong gravitational sources that act as lenses. Astronomers can even study distant galaxies magnified by the gravitational lensing of closer gravitational objects.

Researchers have known for decades that the clustering of galaxies does not mirror the clustering of most of the matter in the universe. The concept that galaxy distribution correlates to matter density at a given site in the universe dates back to 1984. In a galaxy cluster, matter distribution is highly clustered, and halos form at the peak of this distribution. This is called the halo bias.

Halo bias can also be framed as the relationship between the spatial distribution of galaxies and the underlying dark matter density field. Clustering is enhanced relative to the general distribution of mass in the cluster. But there are other theorized properties besides mass that can affect clustering; physicists refer to these as secondary bias, but efforts at identifying them have been inconclusive.

Recently, a group of Italian researchers published a report in Nature Astronomy on a study of PSZ2 GO99.86+58.45, an extremely dense galaxy cluster with a very large gravitational lensing signal. They report that the system is extremely rare within the framework of galactic structure formation, and its characteristics strongly imply the effectiveness of enhancing mechanisms other than mass on dark matter halos.

The researchers analyzed data from two publicly available shear catalogs—the CFHTLenS and RCSLens. They found that the outskirts of the cluster have a very large gravitational lensing signal traceable up to 30 megaparsecs. Its high signal-to-noise ratio implies environment matter density that far exceeds the cosmological mean density. They report that the extreme density of this cluster cannot be attributed solely to mass.

Additionally, the researchers report that their findings agree well with the Lambda cold dark matter model (ΛCDM), which holds that the universe contains a cosmological constant denoted Λ associated with dark energy and cold dark matter. Cold dark matter is a hypothetical form of dark matter in which dark matter particles move slower than light. The ΛCDM model proposes that structure in the universe forms hierarchically from the bottom up, as smaller structures collapse under the influence of their own gravity, and continually merge into larger structures. It is currently the favored model for structure formation in the universe.

The researchers conclude by noting the utility of lensing analysis in the study of galaxy clusters. They write, "Next-generation galaxy surveys will routinely perform the lensing analysis of single halos out to very large radii, as we have presented here."

AbstractGalaxy clusters form at the highest-density nodes of the cosmic web. The clustering of dark matter halos hosting these galaxy clusters is enhanced relative to the general mass distribution, with the matter density beyond the virial region being strongly correlated to the halo mass (halo bias). Halo properties other than mass can further enhance the halo clustering (secondary bias). Observational campaigns have ascertained the halo bias, but efforts to detect this secondary bias for massive halos have been inconclusive. Here, we report the analysis of the environment bias in a sample of massive clusters, selected through the Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect by the Planck mission, focusing on the detection of the environment dark matter correlated to a single cluster, PSZ2 G099.86+58.45. The gravitational lensing signal of the outskirts is very large and can be traced up to 30 megaparsecs with a high signal-to-noise ratio (about 3.4), implying environment matter density in notable excess of the cosmological mean. Our finding reveals this system to be extremely rare in the current paradigm of structure formation and, implies that enhancing mechanisms around high-mass halos can be very effective. Future lensing surveys will probe the surroundings of single haloes, enabling the study of their formation and evolution of structure.

Related Stories

About eighty-five percent of the matter in the universe is in the form of dark matter, whose nature remains a mystery. The rest of the matter in the universe is of the kind found in atoms. Astronomers studying the evolution ...

Dark matter, a mysterious form of matter that makes up about 80 percent of the mass of the universe, has evaded detection for decades. Although it doesn't interact with light, scientists believe it's there because of its ...

A study published recently in the journal Nature Astronomy and which questions current models of structure formation in the universe is based on data obtained with the Gran Telescopio Canarias and among its authors is a team ...

An international team of researchers, including Carnegie Mellon University's Rachel Mandelbaum, has shown that the relationship between galaxy clusters and their surrounding dark matter halo is more complex than previously ...

Galaxy clusters are the largest known structures in the Universe, containing thousands of galaxies and hot gas. But more importantly, they contain the mysterious dark matter, which accounts for 27 percent of all matter and ...

Astronomers studying the motions of galaxies and the character of the cosmic microwave background radiation came to realize in the last century that most of the matter in the universe was not visible. About 84 percent of ...

Constituting over 78 % of the air we breathe, nitrogen is the element found the most often in its pure form on earth. The reason for the abundance of elemental nitrogen is the incredible stability and inertness of dinitrogen ...

Off the coast of Washington, columns of bubbles rise from the seafloor, as if evidence of a sleeping dragon lying below. But these bubbles are methane that is squeezed out of sediment and rises up through the water. The locations ...

The dramatic difference in gonad size between honey bee queens and their female workers in response to their distinct diets requires the switching on of a specific genetic program, according to a new study publishing March ...

An international team based in Ghent, Belgium (VIB-UGent Center for Plant Systems Biology) and Basel, Switzerland (University of Basel), found a link between a class of enzymes and immune signals that is rapidly triggered ...

New photonic tools for medical imaging can be used to understand the nonlinear behavior of laser light in human blood for theranostic applications. When light enters biological fluids it is quickly scattered, however, some ...

One of the ocean's little known carnivores has been allocated a new place in the evolutionary tree of life after scientists discovered its unmistakable resemblance with other sea-floor dwelling creatures.

On a Full Moon the Witches fly between the Dark matter Halos Broom Sticking

Dark matter halos theoretical bodies which galaxies are suspended these halos cannot be observed their presence infered by gravitational lensing

An excellent choice of material for your thesis – choosing a type of matter which does not exist and cannot be seen - Has writing and researching devolved to a state of affairs that can only be described as Witch Craft

When Crafting there thesis it would have been more constructive the nonexistent darkmatter (darkmatter that has the same atomic properties as matter where Gravity is universal that darkmatter is identical to Matter) was put to one side and all the Matter between the galaxies taken into account as only matter and not some fictitious entity

This down to earth approach would find all matter is suddenly visible and a correct calculation of galactic gravitational lensing obtained – no magic required!

.....and what else would you expect in an area of such concentrated observable matter? Maybe nutjobs coming here claiming there can never be gravitational lensing except in the presence of Dark Matter?

From another article: "About eighty-five percent of the matter in the universe is in the form of dark matter, whose nature remains a mystery. The rest of the matter in the universe is of the kind found in atoms."

Well, I do love a good mystery.,,this Dark Matter and Dark Energy. But something that cannot be seen, felt, heard, tasted, or smelt would be, fairly well, as granville mentions - a bit of witchcraft - a magical potion of indescribable flavoring made with ingredients of unknown proportion - a wizardly concoction that remains hidden within the hallowed cupboards of the masters of time and space - It is there for no one to see, for it is the unknown and the unknowable.

Personally, I would go with the CMBR as that 85% since it is everywhere and has been since the beginning. Science should dispense with the Voodoo and rattling of bones to explain why Matter is not taking up all of Space.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit> a bit of witchcraft - a magical potion of indescribable flavoring made with ingredients of unknown proportion - a wizardly concoction that remains hidden within the hallowed cupboards of the masters of time and space

These magic spells of eloquence are an all invading potion of witch craft far greater than that found in the quantum fluctuations where the dark art of matter hides its secret!

The various dark matter theories (and there is more than one) make testable predictions that the various alternative theories to dark matter theory do not (and vice versa) thus to suggest dark matter theory is unscientific and like religion just because dark matter has (so far) not been directly observed is just nonsense. Dark matter theory is a scientific theory and no less or more so than the current alternatives and for the same reasons. All the current credible theories make some yet-to-prove assumptions.

Dark matter theory is a scientific theory and no less or more so than the current alternatives and for the same reasons.

Wrong humy, it is a Pop-Cosmology Theory, not a scientific one, learn the difference or be forever lost in a world of fantasy.

Those of you in the Pop-Cosmology crowd think it's cool to indulge us with what is tantamount to a Universe in which ENTROPY the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not exist beyond our solar system.

To get all this exotic stuff Pop-Cosmology is constantly conjuring up requires the violation of every known immutable Law of Physics, but hey you think, that's the price of progressive thought. In the meantime Pop-Cosmology keeps invoking the name of Albert Einstein for things he never wrote or otherwise stated, like the fantasy of invoking General Relativity as a basis for the existence of Black Holes against which Einstein was adamantly opposed & wrote a subsequent paper in 1939 clearly stating such a position.

The magic of theories are in the quantum fluctuations of the windmills of the mind!

Humy> dark matter theories there is more than one to suggest dark matter theory is unscientific and like religion just because dark matter has not been directly observed is just nonsense

Witch craft is the magic of theory of matter that is dark is still hidden in the quantum fluctuations Humy.The magic of theories is in their wizardry, theories are the mind they come back and bite you when your theories fall flat

Thus to suggest dark matter theory is unscientific like religion which as religion is in the spirit world with witches, warlocks, goblins and trolls where as the laws of thermodynamics, motion, like poles repel… the list is long, are not theories and consequently are not contested and coincidently which all matter or darkmatter are one and the sameAll matter away from theoretical witch craft Humy, is Matter

@ BenniYes you are one.Why are you so terrified of forums?Because you are a Pop-Cosmology Nutter with an Einstein complex, so funny.I dare you again to come air your views on https://www.physi....949603/

^^^Punishment? What punishment? I enjoy poking holes in Nutter's reasoning.What happened on the other thread where you tried to comment on the evolution of the human hand? I would love to hear your crazy thoughts on evolution.Your Einstein complex is your deluded idea that you understand relativity as Einstein did of course. When from your comments it appears you know absolutely nothing. What else?

Your Einstein complex is your deluded idea that you understand relativity as Einstein did of course.

.................why do you think otherwise?

I eat a couple apples everyday, probably has something to do with Einstein, I've heard it was his favorite fruit.

says Benni to Ojorf

Perhaps only a coincidence, but I also enjoy eating apples (Red Delicious and Gala apples). However, every time that I bite into an apple (or any other good morsel of food), I have noticed that what I am enjoying is -- MATTER - which is said to be ~15% of the normal content of the Universe. Whereas, the other 85% is "claimed" to be indisputable scientific evidence of a strange substance of unknown content (Dark Matter) that permeates the Universe wherever Matter is not present. Therefore, before I bite into that apple, is that Dark Matter that is entering my lungs as I breathe in before taking a bite of the apple?-CONTINUED-

-CONTINUED-As I walk through my house and go outdoors to my vehicle, am I walking through Dark Matter? Does my body, which is made of Matter displace Dark Matter so that the DM is shoved aside as my body becomes like a projectile passing through this unknowable DM substance similar to a planetary body orbiting the Sun? At 85% (not an insignificant number) the unseen stuff must be EVERYWHERE...except where atomic/molecular structures reside.

Does Dark Matter constitute a molecular structure? If not, then it is very likely that the 'gravitational lensing signal' is simply a reflection of the photons emanating from material bodies in a star cluster.IF the DM is composed of molecules, then it should be seeable, depending on the type of molecule.

From your link: "Archaeological evidence suggests that early hominins participated in a variety of tool-related activities, such as nut-cracking, cutting flesh, smashing bone to access marrow, as well as making stone tools. However, it is unlikely that all these behaviours equally influenced modern human hand anatomy."

That should read "Paleoarchaeological evidence" which would be more in line with the study of Early Hominins.

"To understand the impact these different actions may have had on the evolution of human hands, researchers measured the force experienced by the hand of 39 individuals during different stone tool behaviours—nut-cracking, marrow acquisition (...) - to see which digits were most important for manipulating the tool."

That is 39 modern-day individuals with already evolved hands, certainly not the hands of early hominins. Flawed study.

As I walk through my house and go outdoors to my vehicle, am I walking through Dark Matter? Does my body, which is made of Matter displace Dark Matter so that the DM is shoved aside as my body becomes like a projectile passing through this unknowable DM substance similar to a planetary body orbiting the Sun? At 85% (not an insignificant number) the unseen stuff must be EVERYWHERE...except where atomic/molecular structures reside.

.........deeply flawed analyses here.

When Einstein calculated Photon Deflection in General Relativity to within 0.02% of error, he did it based on the visible mass of the Sun & the consequential force of gravity based on the quantity of it's visible mass. Einstein thus proved there was no hidden unseen matter in 1916 within our solar system.

Then about 1932 zany Zwicky claims he found DM, but in essence that it only exists in certain places & most specifically not within our solar system because we just sort of didn't need it. Hmmmm?

A matter that is dark - A riddle in the shifting sands to ponder on the handfuls of matter that is dark!

Surveillance_Egg_Unit:- phys.org is even-handed as many articles of matter it counterbalances it with articles that are dark as does physics world, the darkmatter acolytes do not seem to like dark matter questioned even when in favour as though all questions on matter that is dark are really questioning darkmatter.In reality all questions are actually questing darkmatters reality! As handfuls of the stuff in the fluctuations proves the point!

Then about 1932 zany Zwicky claims he found DM, but in essence that it only exists in certain places & most specifically not within our solar system because we just sort of didn't need it. Hmmmm?

...........so if you're following me here, you are seeing that I agree with you in YOUR analyses, but your analyses is deeply flawed from the point of view of Pop-Cosmology aficionados. If our solar system is the ONLY place in the Universe DM is not found, what does that have to say about our solar system? It's UNIQUE? Uh, oh......gotta be careful about where we go from here, right granDy & SEU?

Benni> If our solar system is the ONLY place in the Universe DM is not found, what does that have to say about our solar system? It's UNIQUE? Uh, oh......gotta be careful about where we go from here, right granDy & SEU?

Matter and matter that is dark does not discriminate!That conclusively answers your question, we consist of 85% of what is dark and 15% of what is matter Providing of course the %s are correct and matter that is dark exists, not just In the quantum fluctuations

Careful digging in the text Benni, no one know where they've been What you have unearthed in the text Benni is Obfuscation, a disease that appears to be virulent of late Benni, we hope you're well inoculated; we don't want you to go down with a bad case of the Obfuscations.

Then about 1932 zany Zwicky claims he found DM, but in essence that it only exists in certain places & most specifically not within our solar system because we just sort of didn't need it. Hmmmm?

...........so if you're following me here, you are seeing that I agree with you in YOUR analyses, but your analyses is deeply flawed from the point of view of Pop-Cosmology aficionados. If our solar system is the ONLY place in the Universe DM is not found, what does that have to say about our solar system? It's UNIQUE? Uh, oh......gotta be careful about where we go from here, right granDy & SEU?

says Benni

My analysis is strictly biased wrt the human element and experiences. I cannot speak for any possible Life Forms outside of our Solar System, only wrt that which is detected by the 5 senses and mind/consciousness. Zwicky seems to have come upon an idea that this DM substance can rationalise and decide for itself which part of the Universe it wants to occupy.

Careful digging in the text Benni, no one know where they've been What you have unearthed in the text Benni is Obfuscation, a disease that appears to be virulent of late Benni, we hope you're well inoculated; we don't want you to go down with a bad case of the Obfuscations.

Hey my friend, just askin', no more than that. If the reader thinks it is "Obfuscations" then they will need to be the ones to explain why our solar system is the only place in the Universe no dark matter will ever be found.

Zwicky seems to have come upon an idea that this DM substance can rationalise and decide for itself which part of the Universe it wants to occupy.

-CONTINUED-For Zwicky's Dark Matter to choose where it would prefer to be or not to be as to location, it would require either a Mind or it would be purely instinctive. And if either were the case, the next alternative would be that it is a Life Form. Unless, of course, the DM substance is unable to enter into the confines of our Solar System - for whatever reason, that was unbeknownst to Zwicky himself. Zwicky sounds as though he was a conjurer, a charlatan, a scam artist.

I still stand by my hypothesis that the 85% of the Universe's content is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

Benni> a quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle The question being, transformation of DM?

Quantum vacuum fluctuation is a point change in the amount of energy - occur everywhere in the vacuum that rules out darkmatter as it does not exist in the vacuum presently occupied by our solar system as the quantum fluctuation being a change from mass to energy and presumably energy to mass

Have we done what no darkmatter acolyte has ever achieved, proving the inconstancy of darkmatter in the vacuum where a quantum fluctuation does not "Distinguish" from where in the vacuum a fluctuation occurs

Careful Benni we don't want to disprove completely, like Nessy it will upset the sensitivities to completely disprove Nessy, the same with darkmatter as it is a good discussion point and like a good thriller, it makes for an excellent mystery

I still stand by my hypothesis that the 85% of the Universe's content is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

"Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed as the recombination epoch at 378,000 years after BB, and the event shortly afterwards when photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since" Wiki

So how did our galaxy manage to get out in front of all the "decoupling photons" so that we can look back on them as they are only just now CATCHING UP to us? Decoupling isn't yet complete is what I guess the concept is, I guess the CMBR has something rated in HALF-LIFE?

Zwicky seems to have come upon an idea that this DM substance can rationalise and decide for itself which part of the Universe it wants to occupy.

......kind of an all pervading spirit huh?

says Benni

"If the shoe fits..."This Dark Matter that will not or cannot enter the Solar System, IF it really exists, its general makeup may be incompatible with the Matter within our Solar System, and/or subject to annihilation in at least some parts of the Universe. There may be some pockets of specialised planetary Electromagnetism and/or gravity fields, etc. which might destroy the DM upon connecting with such energies.

As I haven't seen any real evidence wrt the existence of DM, I will withhold all approval and enthusiasm until such evidence unfolds and its story is widely disseminated.

I still stand by my hypothesis that the 85% of the Universe's content is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

"Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed as the recombination epoch at 378,000 years after BB, and the event shortly afterwards when photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since" Wiki

So how did our galaxy manage to get out in front of all the "decoupling photons" so that we can look back on them as they are only just now CATCHING UP to us? Decoupling isn't yet complete is what I guess the concept is, I guess the CMBR has something rated in HALF-LIFE?

says Benni

The CMBR self-propagates as the Universe expands so that it continues to fill the spaces where Matter is not present.

The CMBR self-propagates as the Universe expands so that it continues to fill the spaces where Matter is not present.

.......so what then causes all this radio-wavelength activity so that it NEVER just comes to a halt?

On planet Earth when we humans create this same exact photon energy, it stops when the transmission tower(s) break down, like what happened to the cell phone tower nearest us over the weekend that finally got my wife off her damn cell phone for the rest of the day until yesterday. Take a woman's decoupling photons away from her & you get the feeling the world is about to end.

and/or subject to annihilation in at least some parts of the Universe. There may be some pockets of specialised planetary Electromagnetism and/or gravity fields, etc. which might destroy the DM upon connecting with such energies.

"Energy/Mass cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another."

― Albert Einstein

....my good buddy Albert to the rescue. Ojo might be right, I just might have an "Einstein complex".

and/or subject to annihilation in at least some parts of the Universe. There may be some pockets of specialised planetary Electromagnetism and/or gravity fields, etc. which might destroy the DM upon connecting with such energies.

"Energy/Mass cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another."

― Albert Einstein

....my good buddy Albert to the rescue. Ojo might be right, I just might have an "Einstein complex".

Yes, that should be true of ORDINARY Matter/Energy. But Dark Matter is still an unknown. It still is uncertain exactly what its components are and its properties, if any, are still not understood. All that is "known" about DM is that it is detected through "gravitational lens signals" - otherwise it is unseeable through ordinary means. Is DM a form of Mass or Energy or both or neither? What is its purpose exactly? Does it self-propagate like the CMBR as space expands, or does it remain static? We don't know.

The CMBR self-propagates as the Universe expands so that it continues to fill the spaces where Matter is not present.

.......so what then causes all this radio-wavelength activity so that it NEVER just comes to a halt?

On planet Earth when we humans create this same exact photon energy, it stops when the transmission tower(s) break down, like what happened to the cell phone tower nearest us over the weekend that finally got my wife off her damn cell phone for the rest of the day until yesterday. Take a woman's decoupling photons away from her & you get the feeling the world is about to end.

There are many radio sources, but you may be referring to localised radio transmissions and satellites beaming signals down to the planet and to each other.

BTW - re: your better half - that is way TMI that may be used against you. What you say in PO is forever.

Recombination Epoch at 378,000 years after BB - Sounds like a Biblical Quote from the Scriptures!

Wikipedia> Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed as the recombination epoch at 378,000 years after BB, and the event shortly afterwards when photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since

Benni> So how did our galaxy manage to get out in front of all the "decoupling photons" so that we can look back on them

A Cosmic Egg, at 13.8billions, give or take the odd couple of 100 thousand years

Has this got anything to do with galaxies at 13.8billion years old, give or take the odd couple of 100 thousand years?

As usual in the vacuum Da Schneib, the truth is true as equally as its not.

I can't see any indication of emerging commentary photons not producing magnified, distorted, multiple images revealed on the photographic plates as this is a physical reality that cannot be disguised by diligent astronomers.

Unless Da Schneib you're indicating the astronomers are manipulating the results to fit in with your view there is no gravitational lensing, or are you coming down with a bad infection of the Obfuscations

Benni> "Energy/Mass cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another." Albert Einstein ....my good buddy Albert to the rescue. Ojo might be right, I just might have an "Einstein complex".

Benni like us all you have an "Einstein complex"! But seriously the statement Energy/Mass cannot be created or destroyed

Energy in motion as in the KE of momentum - Newton's law of momentum unless acted on by a force, in theory to produce a force requires no energy in practice Force is "ma" is ML*/T* where if L=1x10-09m produce the theoretical force requires very little energy as depending on how small a distance an electron accelerates a particle reduces the energy required as a femto-metre closes the gap on the theoretical force requires no energy

Which comes to our mass in momentum unless acted on by a force – theorecticly a force requires no energy to stop mass in momentum Benni !

Which comes to our mass in momentum unless acted on by a force – theorecticly a force requires no energy to stop mass in momentum Benni

......you're changing velocity by stopping a mass in momentum, that's a change in energy.

Work is change in energy (KE). Depending on how the work is applied, it will increase (or decrease) a specific quantity of energy. If the work leads to a change in the (absolute) velocity, it will modify the kinetic energy.

M( ML/T*)L where M is 1kg, L is 1.0x10-15m, T is 1.0x10-15s, The force is 1.0x10+15 Newton'sMultiplying by 1.0x10+15 to get the energy expended in one second, 1x10+15 Newton's = 5.0x10-46 j 5.0x10-46 j x1.0x10+15 equals 5.0x10-31 joules in one second

Theoretically to produce a force requires zero, energy reducing the accelerative force to 1.0x10-15 seconds homes in on the theoretically zero energy force!

Which comes to our mass in momentum unless acted on by a force – theorecticly a force requires no energy to stop mass in momentum Benni

......you're changing velocity by stopping a mass in momentum, that's a change in energy.

Work is change in energy (KE). Depending on how the work is applied, it will increase (or decrease) a specific quantity of energy. If the work leads to a change in the (absolute) velocity, it will modify the kinetic energy.

says Benni to granville

This could very well apply also to the firing of a handgun or rifle. I agree that the velocity/momentum of a bullet/projectile in flight may be changed by certain factors, but which requires the stopping energy of a mass.

But what has this to do with the supposed Dark Matter and the gravitational lensing as a mirrored reflection of stellar/planetary bodies behind and farther away?Similar to that little device that enables one to see around corners.

But what has this to do with the supposed Dark Matter and the gravitational lensing as a mirrored reflection of stellar/planetary bodies behind and farther away?

To me, nothing. grandy brought it up so I just dropped the comment so as to let him know that I understand Kinetic Energy versus Electro-Magnetic Energy.

There are some who frequent this chatroom who imagine that if you think of an electro-magnetic wave as being a photon, then they start imaging a PARTICLE in their minds, then imagine a photon can thus be treated as a tiny piece of virtual mass subject to 1/2mv² for the purpose creating a photon sphere of a BH.

Jonesy, being one who has been here numerous times talking about ESCAPE VELOCITY of a photon, Schneibo as well, others. They simply don't know enough Special Relativity to comprehend that ESCAPE VELOCITY is derived from kinetic energy equations & therefore cannot be applied to a PHOTON, but they keep trying this kind of silliness anyway.

@benni@granvilleEscape velocity of a PHOTON?? ROFLOL Did you tell them that c works just fine?

Have recently (in the last few minutes) been pondering whether or not there is a possibility that this Dark Matter which is now so popular is, in reality, a form of antimatter. IF such a thing could be possible, then all Matter in the Universe is in deep trouble.I am hypothesising that if DM is actually antimatter, if it connects with regular, normal Matter such as planets, stars, etc. the merger could cause a huge explosion/annihilation. Pockets of antimatter in the form of so-called "Dark Matter" might be floating around the cosmos, maybe attracted to antiprotons, etc. But if it comes in contact with a cluster of stars/planets it might spell doom for that cluster. Lightning/thunderstorms over the Earth produces antimatter.So I looked up antimatter in Wiki:-CONTINUED-

-CONTINUED--"In theory, a particle and its anti-particle (e.g., proton and antiproton) have the same mass as one another, but opposite electric charge and other differences in quantum numbers. For example, a proton has positive charge while an antiproton has negative charge. A collision between any particle and its anti-particle partner is known to lead to their mutual annihilation, giving rise to various proportions of intense photons (gamma rays), neutrinos, and sometimes less-massive particle–antiparticle pairs.

Annihilation usually results in a release of energy that becomes available for heat or work. The amount of the released energy is usually proportional to the total mass of the collided matter and antimatter, in accordance with the mass–energy equivalence equation, E = mc2.[1]"-

Well, I truly hope that DM is just a flaky theory and not something more sinister.

Stan Laurel pointed out while carrying a piano up miles of steps no work was being done!

Benni the reason why Granville brought up the energy to produce a force Was because Benni Benni brought to ever ones attention energy and mass can neither be created nor destroyed

Benni> Energy/Mass cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another

And I thought I would bring to everyone's attention what Laurel and hardy on carrying a piano up miles of steps, Stan Laurel pointed out while the sweat and curses of Oliver Hardy on holding the heavy end of the piano, no work was being done!

Benni on closer examination in the mathematics to produce a force as you know Benni, the force is decelerating the mass in momentum such that there are dynamics at work, mainly the distance L 1x10+15 Newton's moves through in 1.0x10-15 seconds decelerating a mass of 1.0x10+15kg moving at 1m/s in 1x10-1.0x10-15s what is the energy the force expends in bringing the femto-mass in femto-second steps to a halt?

As you have probably guessed its the same energy to produce the force in one femto-second the magic in the secret, is in the witch craft of the femto-second steps Benni

In the femto world of the atom all forces come in femto-metre and femto-second steps as this is how the atoms apply their forces of attraction and repulsion, atoms are not made of energy as it does grow on trees, they have a limited supply and they have to eke it out wisely.

To produce a force is what holds all matter together and creates gravitational lensing

Surveillance_Egg_Unit> But what has this to do with the supposed Dark Matter and the gravitational lensing as a mirrored

Whether matter or matter that is dark being one and the same, the method atoms hold themselves together is exactly same, the nuclear force is a force, electric field is a force, magnetic field is a force as this is the connection between matter and darkmatter

This very article is concerning gravitational lensing Surveillance_Egg_Unit and Benni which is a forceA very distinct connection between all matter without which matter would not exits and neither would gravitational lensing

Surveillance_Egg_Unit > @benni @granvilleHave recently (in the last few minutes) been pondering whether or not there is a possibility that this Dark Matter which is now so popular is, in reality, a form of antimatter. IF such a thing could be possible, then all Matter in the Universe is in deep trouble.I am hypothesising that if DM is actually antimatter, if it connects with regular, normal Matter such as planets, stars, etc. the merger could cause a huge explosion/annihilation. Pockets of antimatter in the form of so-called "Dark Matter" might be floating around the cosmos, maybe attracted to antiprotons, etc. But if it comes in contact with a cluster of stars/planets it might spell doom for that cluster. Lightning/thunderstorms over the Earth produces antimatter.

Antimatter like darkmatter Surveillance_Egg_Unit, is in the same boat, all atomic properties are the same bar one of opposite charge which is not anti-matter

Escape velocity of a PHOTON?? ROFLOL Did you tell them that c works just fine?

You hit the nail on the head with this.

The Pop-Cosmology crowd in this chatroom really does believe there is a gravity field that can exert such force on an electro-magnetic wave that it can reduce it's velocity to zero, and that's how they come up with their theories about black holes. They don't know gravity has zero effect on "c", they don't know it because they don't comprehend the difference between kinetic energy & electro-magnetic energy.

Sometimes the Pop-Cosmology aficionados imagine they can employ gravitational lensing effects to assert that there are gravity fields so intense that those gravity fields can capture an electro-magnetic wave & eternally bend it into an orbit around a mass from which it can never escape, they point to the supposed effects of DM causing gravitational lensing as evidence for such a preposterous theory.

That one charge Surveillance_Egg_Unit, is the electric field of the quarks.Where the electric field is identical in structure whether positive or negative in the quarksWhich use a combination of opposite electric fields producing positive or negative, where the three of opposite electric fieds in the quarks do not annihilate in the proton, so why would six quarks in contact annihilate?

Beni> gravitational lensing effects to assert that there are gravity fields so intense that those gravity fields can capture an electro-magnetic wave & eternally bend it into an orbit around a mass from which it can never escape, they point to the supposed effects of DM causing gravitational lensing as evidence for such a preposterous theory

There is something physical about electromagnetic waves

Demonstrated in the Christmas lectures, where light reflecting of a mirror sets the mirror in oscillationIs this energy in motion?

I also get the impression Benni, your very conventional and loathe to stick your neck out on conventional topics that Laurel and Hardy raised, almost as though Benni, you might get voted down by the Five Star Club

You're giving this impression Benni, as you're included in every ones absence in the matter, but don't let anything I say persuade you. As any ideas you take notice of will exclude you from Five Star Club and we don't want that to happen do we Benni!

The Pop-Cosmology crowd in this chatroom really does believe there is a gravity field that can exert such force on an electro-magnetic wave that it can reduce it's velocity to zero, and that's how they come up with their theories about black holes. They don't know gravity has zero effect on "c", they don't know it because they don't comprehend the difference between kinetic energy & electro-magnetic energy.

If only you understood GR it would all become clear to you. You have things so mixed up it's funny.

Demonstrated in the Christmas lectures, where light reflecting of a mirror sets the mirror in oscillationIs this energy in motion?

Compton scattering is what it is.

An electro-magnetic wave imparts energy to outer orbital electrons causing them to move into higher orbits within the electron shell structure of an atom. Turn off the stream of photons & those excited electrons will drop back into their previous orbital configuration within the electron shell if there was no ionization.

Benni> The Pop-Cosmology crowd in this chatroom really does believe there is a gravity field that can exert such force on an electro-magnetic wave that it can reduce it's velocity to zero, and that's how they come up with their theories about black holes. They don't know gravity has zero effect on "c", they don't know it because they don't comprehend the difference between kinetic energy & electro-magnetic energy.

Ojorf> If only you understood GR it would all become clear to you. You have things so mixed up it's funny.

You need to educate the mystified in Pop-Cosmology Ojorf; I'm fond of dandelion and burdock where Cosmology is in my stars as a Sagittarius, but Pop-Cosmology is as mystifying as the stars!

As to what Benni is implying, he's been replying to my comments so tread carefully Ojorf!

There is something physical about electromagnetic wavesDemonstrated in the Christmas lectures, where light reflecting of a mirror sets the mirror in oscillationIs this energy in motion?

Compton scattering is what it is.An electro-magnetic wave imparts energy to outer orbital electrons causing them to move into higher orbits within the electron shell structure of an atom. Turn off the stream of photons & those excited electrons will drop back into their previous orbital configuration within the electron shell if there was no ionization.

As the stream of photons are reflecting each photon imparts energy moving electrons which emit photons in the process, as there is a force on the mirror implies reaction where the only reaction possible, as waves are massless as energy is massless, is the electrons mass in motion to its higher orbit which cannot produce a force because it stays within the same atom.

really does believe there is a gravity field that can exert such force on an electro-magnetic wave that it can reduce it's velocity to zero

Erm...no? No one ever in the history of science claimed that the velocity of light is changed inside a black hole.

Light is at c - even inside a black hole. Gravity is not a force - it is a warping of spacetime. Light follows a geodesic. Inside the event horizon of a black hole there is just no geodesic that leads back to the outside (because all geodesics are warped back towards the center of the black hole)

there is just no geodesic that leads back to the outside (because all geodesics are warped back towards the center of the black hole)

The epitome of Pop-Cosmology denying the immutable Inverse Square Law.

Gravity grows steadily weaker the closer you get to the center of a stellar mass. At the exact CENTER of a MASS gravity is ZERO.

So how can there be "warping back towards the center" of a mass while gravity grows steadily weaker in accordance with the Inverse Square Law?

The Inverse Square Law is immutable, that gravity exerts it's greatest strength of field exactly at the SURFACE of a mass, but leave it to Pop-Cosmology to turn it around backwards with convoluted reasoning like this:

there is just no geodesic that leads back to the outside

Get a grip, geodesics as you try to describe it have nothing to do with the immutability of the Inverse Square Law.

It would be interesting to see a warped vacuum, but "time" I can somewhat understand, like if i throw a clock through the vacuum & it hits something causing it's frame & time hands to become all bent out of shape.

It's what I call the vacuous vacuum and for good reason Of all the properties matter and energy has the vacuum has absolutely zero propertiesEveryone is trolling out the same statement a warped vacuum, thinking it is more palatable as warping of space-time as though space is magically is not a vacuum

What is needed is a definitive vacuous statement as to what is the warping of the vacuous vacuum

It's so vacuous Benni; it doesn't even qualify in the pop cosmology ratingsNow that's a first, the vacuous vacuum is not even recommended for a pop cosmology rating!

Gravity grows steadily weaker the closer you get to the center of a stellar mass. At the exact CENTER of a MASS gravity is ZERO. -Benni

The gravitational force is zero. The gravitational potential energy, on the other hand, is at its most extreme value there. Being a student of differential equations, Benni, I'm sure you'll immediately recognize and appreciate how this works. We can define the gravitational potential energy of an object with total mass M and test mass m separated by distance r as U = -Mm/r, assuming spherical symmetry, recognizing that below its surface, M will also be a function of r. Perhaps we should write it as U = -M(r)m/r. The force is the gradient of the potential energy. Outside of the surface of M, this becomes F = d(-Mm/r)/dr which of course reduces to F = Mm/r^2. Inside is an entirely different matter, however. We know M(r) where r= 0 is M(0) = 0, but further knowledge of the mass distribution requires an equation of state, etc...

Gravity grows steadily weaker the closer you get to the center of a stellar mass. At the exact CENTER of a MASS gravity is ZERO. -Benni

The gravitational force is zero. The gravitational potential energy, on the other hand, is at its most extreme value there. Being a student of differential equations. We can define the gravitational potential energy of an object with total mass M and test mass m separated by distance r as U = -Mm/r, assuming spherical symmetry, recognizing that below its surface, M will also be a function of r. Perhaps we should write it as U = -M(r)m/r. The force is the gradient of the potential energy. Outside of the surface of M, this becomes F = d(-Mm/r)/dr which of course reduces to F = Mm/r^2. Inside is an entirely different matter, however. We know M(r) where r= 0 is M(0) = 0, but further knowledge of the mass distribution requires an equation of state, etc...

Gravity grows steadily weaker the closer you get to the center of a stellar mass. At the exact CENTER of a MASS gravity is ZERO.

So how can there be "warping back towards the center" of a mass while gravity grows steadily weaker in accordance with the Inverse Square Law?

Like I said, if you understood the just the basics of GR, it would all become clear. You have things so mixed up I totally understand why nothing seems to make sense to you.Come start a thread on the forum, let people help you.

A piece of warped vacuous vacuum – a comparison in relativism of Bennies infamous half a neutronOr is this half a vacuous hole, but where did they put the vacuous vacuum they dug out – they dug another vacuous hole in the vacuum and buried it!

Benni > Gravity grows steadily weaker the closer you get to the centre of a stellar mass. At the exact CENTER of a MASS gravity is ZERO. So how can there be "warping back towards the centre" of a mass while gravity grows steadily weaker in accordance with the Inverse Square Law?

Ojorf> Like I said, if you understood the just the basics of GR, it would all become clear. You have things so mixed up I totally understand why nothing seems to make sense to you. Come start a thread on the forum, let people help you.

Well Ojorf back to the future genius, in words of almost what is the warping of space time, as space is the vacuous vacuum; what does a piece of warped vacuous vacuum look like?

F = d(-Mm/r)/dr which reduces to F = Mm/r^2 But there is no Force in the warping of space-time

barakn> We can define the gravitational potential energy of an object with total mass M and test mass m separated by distance r as U = -Mm/r, assuming spherical symmetry, recognizing that below its surface, M will also be a function of r. Perhaps we should write it as U = -M(r)m/r. The force is the gradient of the potential energy. Outside of the surface of M, this becomes F = d(-Mm/r)/dr which of course reduces to F = Mm/r^2. Inside is an entirely different matter, however. We know M(r) where r= 0 is M(0) = 0, but further knowledge of the mass distribution requires an equation of state, etc...

antialias_physorg> Gravity is not a force - it is a warping of space-time

barakn, as correct as your derivation of gravitational force, until further notice; we have it on good authority Gravity is not a force - it is a warping of space-time

Ojorf:- I think Ojorf, without fear of contradiction that Wikipedia does not give a derivation on what a piece of warped vacuum in its vacuous vacuum is visually visualised

If you can find the Wikipedia link, don't hesitate to post for everyone to view, as even your good self obviously doesn't know!

Maybe Ojorf can give us a description of the appearance of a "warped piece of an empty space". Maybe he's even got pics? How about that Ojo, you got a pic of what a warped empty space looks like?

While you're at it Ojo, maybe you can put up a pic of a stellar mass in which the Inverse Square Law functions in such a way that the greatest attraction of it's gravity field is at the CENTER of a mass & not it's surface, yeah, that's in GR? OK, quote it for us if you imagine you're so literate in the thesis.

Sir Isaac Newton colleagues saw fit to describe Newton's work Laws of motion and gravity.330 years later, the very same establishment are quite at ease calling them Newton's laws

To free Albert Einstein from the shackles of the spirit world we have to stop deferring to the spirit world (the vacuum of space) as for example in monopoles, the force of magnetism as warped space and the same in gravitational attraction as warped space, and time as a manifestation of warped space

.......Dark Matter? Dark Energy? Both? Or maybe just Pop-Cosmology off on another of it's unending rants hoping to prevail against the immutable Laws of Physics such as the Inverse Square Law that Ojorf has been unable to figure out. Right Ojo?

No, that's simply concentrated energy, we do the same thing on a place called planet Earth, plasma beams, lasers, flashlights. Didn't know this did you? And guess what else, we can bend this stuff.

Benni

Any well-qualified self-respected physicist would say you are talking complete and utter GIBBERISH.'gravitational lensing' doesn't exist because it is 'simply concentrated energy'? GIBBERISH.Us bending with light with lenses is clearly us using a completely different effect from gravity bending of light in nature. Learn some real science before commenting on it.

antialias_physorg> Gravity is not a force - it is a warping of space-time

barakn, as correct as your derivation of gravitational force, until further notice; we have it on good authority Gravity is not a force - it is a warping of space-time

The Force is not with you, barakn

I'm happy with the notion of warped spacetime. I was pointing out to Bunni that even within a Newtonian framework, stating that '"gravity is zero [at the center of a spherically symmetrical mass distribution]" is not necessarily correct, because we can talk about the gravitational potential energy instead of force. I'm not surprised the point was lost on the both of you.

'gravitational lensing' doesn't exist because it is 'simply concentrated energy'

.....no, this is just you twisting someone else's words, follow your own advice:

Learn some real science before commenting on it.

Oh, forgot to tell you,

gravitational potential energy

;;;;;this quip you are using is not the proper application of GPE, once again, follow your own advice & stop trying to apply Pop-Cosmology fantasies to real science, you know, like the IMMUTABLE Inverse Square Law that obliterates any possibility for the existence of black holes with infinite gravity & density at it's center.

You really do need to learn that gravity is MASS dependent, not FANTASY dependent.

A Cambridge Graduate who thinks Kings Parade is a shopping centreGravity is not a force - it is a warping of space-timeThe Vacuous Vacuum Contesting the Inverse Square LawHow do we reconcile the two?The haunting continues!Sorry for the double entry, a slip of the mouse Must be all that haunting taking effect!

A Cambridge Graduate who thinks Kings Parade is a shopping centreGravity is not a force - it is a warping of space-timeThe Vacuous Vacuum Contesting the Inverse Square LawHow do we reconcile the two?The haunting continues!

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.